See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/256542856

Development of a social impact assessment methodology for recycling

systems in low-income countries

Article in The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · January 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s11367-013-0546-8

CITATIONS READS

106 1,991

1 author:

Sandra Aparcana
Technical University of Denmark
9 PUBLICATIONS 452 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sandra Aparcana on 07 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int J Life Cycle Assess (2013) 18:1106–1115
DOI 10.1007/s11367-013-0546-8
SOCIETAL LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
Development of a social impact assessment methodology
for recycling systems in low-income countries
Sandra Aparcana & Stefan Salhofer
Received: 8 May 2012 / Accepted: 7 January 2013 / Published online: 23 January 2013
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
Abstract
Purpose Informal recycling is one of the most significant
activities within waste management systems in low-income
countries. The main aspect of a number of recently imple-
mented waste management systems has been to organise the
informal recycling sector. The implementation of formalisa-
tion is expected to eliminate social problems related to the
informal sector, but this has not been precisely measured and
evaluated. A lack of methodology to assess social impacts
persists, as does the comparison of different formalisation
approaches. The goal of this work is to develop a methodo-
logical procedure for assessing the contribution of formalised
recycling systems in low-income countries in terms of social
impacts, in comparison with informal systems.
Methods Some existing social assessment approaches were
evaluated by a review of literature. This investigation focus-
es on the development of the social life cycle assessment
approach, the analysed social aspects, proposed indicators
and characterisation models within this framework.
Results and discussion This study proposes an approach for
the social assessment of recycling systems based on formal-
isation approaches in low-income countries oriented to-
wards the social life cycle assessment methodology
(sLCA). The approach developed considers 3 social impact
categories, 9 social subcategories and 26 semi-quantitative
indicators for the assessment of the social impacts on for-
malised recyclers. It includes a characterisation procedure
that takes into consideration the application of a score
Responsible editor: Thomas Swarr
S. Aparcana (*) : S. Salhofer
Institute of Waste Management, University of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences, Muthgasse 107,
1190 Vienna, Austria
e-mail: sandra.aparcana@boku.ac.at
system and the calculation of average scores at both the
indicator and subcategory levels.
Conclusions This research shows that it would be feasible
to apply a sLCA-based methodology to evaluate recycling
systems based on formalisation of the informal sector. The
impact categories and subcategories identified represent the
social problems of informal recyclers. The 26 semi-
quantitative indicators and the proposed characterisation
approach attempt to measure the social impacts that current-
ly are only qualitatively assumed. The applicability and
validation of the indicators and characterisation procedure
will be determined by further research. The methodology
developed will be tested using data from three recycling
systems in Peruvian cities.
Keywords Formalisation . Low-income countries .
Recyclers . Recycling system . Social life cycle assessment
1 Introduction
The informal sector plays an important role in waste manage-
ment systems in low-income countries. This sector is defined
as individuals or groups that carry out various activities within
the waste management system (collection, recycling, treat-
ment and disposal) without formal assignment. It focuses
mainly on recycling and contributes significantly to the waste
management of low- and middle-income countries. Several
cities in low-income countries have identified the need to
recognise the economic, environmental and social contribu-
tion of the informal recycling sector to waste management
systems. Some cities in India, Peru, Brazil, the Philippines and
Colombia have developed their recycling systems by the
formalisation and inclusion of the informal sector (Rathi
2006; UN–HABITAT 2010; Gutberlet 2011; Wilson et al.
2009; Medina 2000).
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2013) 18:1106–1115
The most common social problems of informal recycling
are inappropriate working conditions which endanger health
and safety, social rejection, exploitation and poverty.
Customarily, socially disadvantaged individuals or groups
work in informal recycling (e.g. children, pregnant women
and the elderly). It is assumed that formalisation leads to the
reduction or elimination of such problems, although this has
not been precisely measured and evaluated. A methodology
for assessing the social impacts of formalisation within
waste recycling systems in low-income countries has not
been developed.
In contrast, there are several methodological proposals
for assessing the social impacts of products and production
chains using a variety of characterisation procedures that
gauge the various social aspects of those products. One of
them is the social life cycle assessment methodology
(sLCA) notwithstanding its procedures, and characterisation
methods of impact categories and subcategories are still
under development.
The goal of this work is to develop a methodological
procedure for assessing the contribution in low-income
countries of formalised recycling systems, in terms of social
impacts, compared to recycling systems using informal recy-
clers. In order to develop this methodology, research of the
existing methodologies for social impact assessment including
several experiences with the sLCA was carried out. The in-
tention was to identify similarities and differences regarding
the social impacts, their definition and interpretation. Further
aspects such as characterisation approaches, definition and
type of indicators, and data collection have also been analysed
for their suitability of application for the social assessment of
formalisation approaches in recycling systems. This method-
ology seeks to follow and to adapt the steps defined in the
UNEP–SETAC guidelines for sLCA (2009) and to apply them
to the social assessment of formalised recycling systems in
low-income countries. The applicability and the relevance of
the methodology developed will be tested on three Peruvian
case studies with different formalisation approaches.
2 Waste management in low-income countries
Low-income countries have some similarities regarding
their socio-economic conditions. In these countries, waste
management systems are often not efficient and operate to
low standards (Wilson et al. 2006). Scheinberg et al. (2006)
define waste management systems in low-income countries
as a “pre-modernised system based on a single disposal
technology (dumping or landfilling). The waste manage-
ment system is managed by a single major stakeholder: the
local government sometimes supplemented by private waste
collectors. Other actors—like recyclers—operate at the mar-
gins, and have the status of informal sector”.
1107
The deficiencies of waste management systems in low-
income countries can be demonstrated by their low national
coverage rates. Gamarra and Salhofer (2007) give some
examples of waste collection rates in Latin America (in
Peru 74 %, Mexico 70 % and Uruguay 71 % in terms of
percent waste collected) and compare them with the waste
collection rates in Central Eastern Europe and Central
Europe, which are nearly 100 %. Regarding the final waste
disposal, the authors specified the use of controlled dumps,
uncontrolled dumps and sanitary landfills as the most com-
monly used disposal systems in Latin America. The pres-
ence of informal recycling is identified at uncontrolled and
controlled dumps. This situation along with the deficient
collection rates allows the participation of the informal
recycling under inadequate and uncontrolled conditions.
Figure 1 presents, as an example, a flow diagram of a
common waste management system in Peru including infor-
mal recycling. The material flow corresponding to recycla-
ble waste (plastic, glass, metal, paper and cardboard) and
mixed waste (organic waste, non-recyclable waste materials
and recyclable waste materials) is represented in this figure.
3 Informal recycling and formalisation approaches
3.1 Informal recycling
The informal sector in waste management comprises individ-
uals or groups that have no access to formal recycling activ-
ities. Such people are referred to by many names depending
on the local language, but they are usually known as scav-
engers, waste pickers or rag pickers (Medina 2000). Other
authors prefer to name them “recyclers” (Gutberlet 2011) as a
form of recognition of their recycling activities and their
contribution to the recycling market in low-income countries.
For this work, it has been decided to use “recycler”.
They extract recyclable materials from dumping places,
from street bins, communal collection sites, etc. and they
sell them in order to enhance their livelihoods (Scheinberg
et al. 2006). They perform their activities under poor work-
ing conditions which represent a high risk to their health.
Numerous studies have shown the presence of diseases
connected with waste working (Medina 2000; Countreau
2006; Wilson et al. 2006; Zurbrügg and Schertenleib
1998). Informal recycling contributes significantly to the
recycling rates in low-income countries. Table 1 shows
some examples of their contribution (UN–HABITAT 2010;
Wilson et al. 2009; Scheinberg et al. 2010).
This is reflected by their economic contribution to the
formal sector. For example, in Mumbai (India), it was esti-
mated that the cost of the waste system without the informal
sector was around USD 44 per ton of waste; however, in
cooperation with the informal sector the cost amounts to
1108 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2013) 18:1106–1115

Fig. 1 Example of a typical

waste management system in
low-income countries

USD 35 per ton (Rathi 2006). The same has been noted in and its inclusion in formal waste management systems as an
Londrina, Brazil, where the integration of informal recyclers effective strategy. As a consequence, some formalisation
in the formal waste management system has cut the cost of approaches have been implemented in recent years in order
waste collection from USD 42 per ton in 2001 to USD 24 in to improve the waste management systems. Various authors
2003. With respect to social issues, several studies have have written about the tendencies of the formalisation
identified the same problems: child labour, truancy in approaches in low-income countries. Medina (2000) describes
schools, incomplete school education for adults and poor some public policies that are based on a negative perception of
working conditions (Medina 2000; Wilson et al. 2006; informal recycling and try to encourage informal recyclers to
Scheinberg et al. 2006; International Labour 2004). engage in other occupations in order to reduce their informal
activities (Medina 2000). Scheinberg et al. (2006) indicate that
3.2 Formalisation approaches this approach fails to recognise that leaving their recycling
activities would precipitate a reduction of their incomes to
Political trends together with socio-economic and environ- below the minimum level in these countries (Arroyo et al.
mental problems related to inefficient waste management have 1998 cited by Scheinberg et al. 2006).
led to several low-income countries attempts to bring their Alternative formalisation approaches prefer to encourage
systems up to European or American standards (Scheinberg et recyclers’ activities. They focus on recognition of the environ-
al. 2006). This modernisation is characterised by a transfor- mental, social and economic benefits of informal recycling.
mation to complex integrated systems with multiple formal Under this system, authorities support the formalisation of
stakeholders, a wide diversity of technical operations and the recycling activities, promoting the formation of recycling asso-
expulsion or rejection of the informal sector (Scheinberg et al. ciations. Commonly, the cooperation scheme is based on the
2006). Despite these innovations, some cities have identified formation of public–private partnerships, collection and recy-
the need to recognise the contribution of the informal sector cling contracts with recyclers, etc. (Medina 2000).
Further studies about formalisation in low-income
countries describe as main features the creation and support
Table 1 Examples of the contribution of the informal sector in recy-
cling rates in low-income countries
of recyclers’ associations, their inclusion in formal waste
collection, the creation of a legal framework to support their
Country City % recycling (formal/informal integration (Peru and Brazil), the improvement of working
sector) conditions, betterment of incomes through cooperation con-
Egypt Cairo 85 (11/74 %)
tracts with local authorities, the elimination of child labour,
educational programmes, diversification of services, etc.
The Philippines Manila 25 (2/23 %)
Strategies implemented in the Philippines, India, Colombia,
India Delhi 34 (7/27 %)
Mexico, Brazil and Peru are based on these measures (Wilson
The Philippines Quezon City 39 (8/31 %)
et al. 2009; Rathi 2006; Medina 2000; Gutberlet 2011;
Peru Lima 20 (0.3/19.7 %)
Scheinberg et al. 2010).
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2013) 18:1106–1115
4 Social impact assessment as a part of a sustainability
assessment
To establish sustainability, environmental, economic and
social issues should be taken into consideration and brought
together (Klang et al. 2003; Ness et al. 2007; Klöpffer and
Ciroth 2011). Currently, there are several techniques for
assessing the social impacts within a system. The studies
performed by Brouwer and Van Ek (2004), Klang et al.
(2003) and Kijak and Moy (2004) are examples of these
approaches. They aimed to carry out sustainability assess-
ments, applying different procedures for the social analysis.
Common methodological aspects of these studies are the
data collection procedures and data sources considered for
the study: local social reports, the opinions of social experts
and interviews with local stakeholders (citizens, companies,
local authorities, etc.). These studies proposed the applica-
tion of scores, e.g. + or − (Brouwer and Van Ek 2004), 1 to 5
(Klang et al. 2003; Kijak and Moy 2004) and the interpre-
tation of results are performed based on the comparison with
international or local social regulations, e.g. (Klang et al.
2003) for the social evaluation of management of demoli-
tion waste. Some examples of social aspects already evalu-
ated are the perceptions of citizens in relation to landscape
changes, communication (Brouwer and Van Ek 2004), phys-
ical and psychological working conditions for the workers
in demolition recycling alternatives (Klang et al. 2003),
odours and noise emissions, dust, impact on the public
health, etc. (Kijak and Moy 2004).
In 2009, the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative devel-
oped the social life cycle assessment methodology to assess
impacts of products during their life cycle. The sLCA uses
predominantly semi-quantitative indicators and proposes a
list of social impact categories and subcategories to be
considered according to international social conventions
(e.g. ILO) and the stakeholders involved in a production
system. However, the social aspects to be evaluated are
constantly changing depending on the system and the stake-
holders involved.
5 Development of a social impact assessment
methodology for recycling systems in low-income
countries
In order to perform a social impact assessment of recycling
systems, a methodology was proposed based on different
social impact assessment methodologies (including sLCA)
and several case studies about the application of these
approaches. The methodology follows the four sLCA steps
and seeks to adapt them to recycling systems with common-
ly implemented formalisation approaches. Figure 2 shows a
flow chart of commonly implemented formalisation
1109
approaches in low-income countries. In a further paper, the
proposed methodology will be tested in three Peruvian
recycling systems.
5.1 Goal and scope
According to UNEP (2009), it is important to delineate the
goal and scope in order to define the purpose of the analysis.
It will ensure the fulfilment of the final application of the
study. Jørgensen et al. (2008) mention two possible main
goals of a sLCA: the comparison of products, production
processes or companies and the identification of the im-
provement potential of products or processes.
The goal of this study is the assessment of recycling
systems based on formalisation in terms of social impacts,
in comparison to informal recycling systems in low-income
countries. Formalisation approaches in recycling systems
are mainly designed and implemented with the aim of re-
ducing or eliminating the social problems that affect infor-
mal recyclers. The related social problems that often occur
are in the areas of labour rights, working conditions and
educational issues. This assessment attempts to objectively
identify and measure the social impacts of frequently imple-
mented formalisation approaches on the formalised recy-
clers compared to informal recycling systems. In order to
perform this assessment, the functional unit is defined as the
amount of household recyclable waste collected by one
house during 1 year. Using the Peruvian national average
waste generation rate and waste composition rate (MINAM.
Ministry of Environment 2011), the functional unit is
deemed to be 60 kg/inhabitant-year of collected recyclable
household waste.
In low-income countries, the collection of recyclable
waste can be carried out by the municipality, informal recy-
clers or formalised recyclers. Defining the functional unit
allows for the methodology to be applied to different recy-
cling systems. The recycling activities that are considered
for analysis are recyclable waste collection and manual pre
processing.
Other stakeholders are linked to recycling systems based
on formalisation (e.g. citizens, recycling companies, waste
disposal companies, informal recyclers beyond the formal-
ised system, etc.). They can often be socially affected by the
implementation of formalisation in relation to, e.g. environ-
mental education and raising awareness, satisfaction about
environmental amelioration, job creation, socio-economic
impacts caused by the limited access to recyclable materials
(for informal recyclers not included in the formalisation
measures), etc. However, as the focus of this study is the
social impact of formalisation on recyclers, only impacts
related to that particular group will be considered. It should
be pointed out that this methodology for social impact
assessment contemplates only the social impacts occurring
1110
Fig. 2 Formalisation approach
based on cooperation with
recyclers’ associations
as a result of the implementation and actual operation of
formalisation. This methodology is not oriented to a preven-
tive approach and does not analyse potential social impacts
caused by planned or unimplemented formalisation process.
5.1.1 Impacts categories and subcategories
Social impacts are defined as the consequences of social
interactions within a production system (production, use,
final disposal) (UNEP 2009). Further studies (Klang et al.
2003; Brouwer and Van Ek 2004; Kijak and Moy 2004)
describe social impacts based on an analysis of the stake-
holders involved in each process and their relevant social
actions. Social impacts can be grouped in categories which
can be further subdivided into subcategories, representing
the applicable social features to be assessed.
As mentioned above, informal recyclers carry out their
activities under inappropriate conditions that often endanger
their health and safety. They experience discrimination, poor
working conditions, a low level of education, poverty and are
sometimes even considered criminals. Their children are often
involved in various stages of the picking process (mostly in
dumpsites or at home). Children from families of recyclers
contribute significantly to the family income (income varies
from 10 to 50 % of an adult’s income), and for this reason, it is
difficult to convince their parents to allow the children go to
school (International Labour 2004). Informal recyclers, who
are frequently non-organised individuals, survive under very
difficult social and physical environments. They are paid a
pittance by the middlemen, who have a stronger negotiating
position (Medina 2000; Wilson et al. 2006). Regarding health
conditions, Medina (2000), Wilson et al. (2006) and Zurbrügg
and Schertenleib (1998) have reported the presence of dis-
eases related to contact with waste.
In reference to psychological working conditions, Scheinberg
et al. (2006), Medina (2000) and Cozzensa et al. (2006) report
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2013) 18:1106–1115
low job satisfaction and other negative psychological impacts
because of the lack of employment security, lower social status,
dangerous work places, unsatisfactory working conditions, irreg-
ular working hours and isolation, etc.
In order to measure the social effects of formalisation
approaches, the social impact categories and subcategories
in this study were chosen from a review of literature on the
social problems of informal recyclers in low-income
countries, and previous studies related to social assessment
in general. The social impact categories that represent the
social problems of recyclers were identified as human rights,
working conditions and socio-economic repercussions.
It should be mentioned that the selected categories and
subcategories relating to workers were also applied by
others’ social assessments on products (Manhart and
Grießhammer 2006). Within the selected social impact cat-
egories, there are nine subcategories, which describe more
precisely these social issues. Table 2 shows the social im-
pact categories and subcategories to be assessed.
5.1.2 Social indicators
UNEP (2009) and Jørgensen et al. (2008) discuss the use of
quantitative, qualitative and semi-quantitative indicators. The
last is defined as a numerical description of qualitative infor-
mation by using different scoring systems. The second crite-
rion for the formulation of indicators is their direct or indirect
measurement of the phenomena that cause the social impact.
Direct indicators are a traditional quantitative and one-
dimensional representation of a social impact (Jørgensen et
al. 2008; Dreyer et al. 2006). One example is the frequently
used indicator “number of employees under 15 years old”
(Dreyer et al. 2010). This indicator measures child labour.
However, further aspects pertaining to local context or special
situations like the social responsibility of a company are not
considered.
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2013) 18:1106–1115
Table 2 Social impact categories, subcategories and indicators for sLCA for recycling systems
Impact category Impact subcategory
Human rights Child labour
Discrimination
Freedom of association and collective bargaining
Working conditions Working hours
Minimum income, fair income
Recognised employment relationships and
fulfilment of legal social benefits
Physical working conditions (health, security,
working equipment)
Psychological working conditions
Socio-economic Education
repercussions
The authors define indirect indicators as those based on
preventive social measures. These indicators aim to assess
the preventive management effort of a company rather than
the reported impacts (Jørgensen et al. 2008). One example
of these indicators can be the presence of management
measures to ensure training for workers in relation to safety
and occupational work, instructions for the safe use of
machines, etc. (Dreyer et al. 2010).
This study defines 26 semi-quantitative indicators for the
assessment of social impact subcategories. Among these,
three indirect indicators are proposed. They are related to
prevention policies regarding discrimination, occupational
health and safety and training programmes. An attempt has
been made to combine the use of direct and indirect indica-
tors in order to more accurately detect the risk of threats to
or negative effects on the social issues. Table 2 shows the
selected social categories, subcategories and the indicators
adopted.
Through research about the situation of informal recy-
clers in low-income countries, the most common social
1111
Indicator
No child labour
Formal policy against discrimination
No income differences between women and men
Presence of collective bargaining
Fulfilment of overtime agreed in working contracts
Average income according to legal framework
Absence of non-agreed income deductions
Regular payment for the workers
Minimum income according to legal framework
Existence of legal working contracts for all workers
Access to legal social benefits
Access to further social support programmes for workers
Absence of work accidents
Formal policy about occupational health and safety
Vaccination for workers
Training programmes for workers regarding occupational
health and safety
Access to preventive health care programme for workers
Presence of medical equipment at the working place for the
workers’ use
Absence of diseases related to waste handling
Appropriate working equipment
Willingness to continue working in the same company or sector
Work satisfaction
Willingness to be trained regarding the work activities
Educational level of children from families of recyclers
No school absence of children from families of recyclers
Existence of educational programmes for self-development
problems affecting them were identified. As already de-
scribed the social impact categories and subcategories as
well as their indicators were proposed according this infor-
mation. One common human rights concern in informal
recycling is the presence of children working as informal
recyclers at dumps and on the streets. They help their
families by picking materials or sorting at home
(International Labour 2004). Formalisation approaches seek
to eliminate child labour. In order to measure the social
performance of this issue, the indicator “no child labour”
was defined. Further studies report the presence of discrim-
ination particularly impinging upon gender, religion, social
rejection, physical disability, etc. (Medina 2000; Wilson et
al. 2006). Some of these forms of discrimination are some-
what typical for the country or region. The formalisation
approaches implemented in low-income countries have a
task of reducing or eliminating the factors which cause
discrimination. Gender discrimination often manifests itself
in lower incomes for women. A lack of strength, care
children at home, pregnancy, etc. means women collect
1112
lower waste amounts than men and they are not able to earn
enough. Diverse formalisation approaches with specials
measures to deal with this topic were implemented in, e.g.
The Philippines, India, Colombia and Brazil (Wilson et al.
2009; Mahadevia et al. 2005; Terraza and Sturzenegger
2010). The indicator “no income differences between wom-
en and men” was defined in order to identify the positive or
negative performance of the formalisation approaches in
relation to this matter. The indicator “formal policy against
discrimination” also seeks to measure indirectly the risk or
probability of discrimination within the formalised recycling
activities.
Organising informal recycling has important consequen-
ces for income generation, working conditions and social
status (Wilson et al. 2006). Several formalisation
approaches are based on the organisation of recyclers and
creation of recyclers’ associations. Wilson et al. (2000),
Wilson et al. (2006) and further studies assert that this factor
is essential for successful formalisation. The positive effects
reportedly emanating from this measure are increased in-
come, cooperation contracts between the recyclers and other
stakeholders, diversification of services and the empower-
ment of recyclers. These experiences have led to the indica-
tor “presence of collective bargaining and associations” to
be chosen. The presence of active collective bargaining and
associations validates a positive performance in reference to
this impact subcategory.
Informal recyclers are notably vulnerable to long working
hours, low incomes, unfair payments for the materials that
they recover and sell to middlemen, and both variability and
insecurity in their daily income. Formalisation approaches
seek to eliminate this predicament by ensuring fair incomes
in line with the legal minimum in the country, fair prices for
recyclable material (fair trade of material from recyclers’
associations to recycling companies), etc. Furthermore, coop-
eration contracts between the authorities and formalised recy-
clers are signed in order to ensure the collection service and
stabilise incomes for the recyclers. Some examples are de-
scribed by Gutberlet (2011) in relation to the formalisation
implemented in Londrina and Diadema, Brazil. The indicators
chosen for the subcategories working hours and minimum,
fair income try to determine if the formalisation approaches
implemented fulfil their respective goals.
The target of formalisation approaches is to organise
informal recyclers and to legalise their situation and their
activities. Several studies on the general situation of infor-
mal recyclers in low-income countries report their illegal
status, the failure to recognise their work, precarious daily
incomes, expulsion from waste areas or a prohibition on
gathering waste and a lack of access to social benefits, e.g.
social security, insured pension plan, etc. (Scheinberg et al.
2006; Wilson et al. 2006; Medina 2000). Often, the formal-
isation approaches seek to mitigate these problems by
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2013) 18:1106–1115
legalising their activities through cooperation contracts or
public–private partnerships between the recyclers’ associa-
tions and local authorities or private stakeholders
(Scheinberg et al. 2006). Recognised, legal business rela-
tionships are created, opening access to social support pro-
grammes and legal social benefits.
This methodology proposes indicators for legal work
contracts, access to social benefits and social support pro-
grammes in order to evaluate whether the objectives of
legitimising working activities and the creation of access
to social support have been achieved.
Multiple studies about the general situation of informal
recyclers in low-income countries report poor working con-
ditions as a main problem. Informal recyclers work in haz-
ardous conditions. They move waste around, searching for
material, and are exposed to disease vectors, animals, infec-
tious agents, injuries, etc. Formalisation approaches normal-
ly include several measures for the improvement of physical
working conditions: accident prevention training pro-
grammes, occupational health policies, the implementation
of preventive health care programmes including vaccina-
tion, work equipment, etc. This methodology seeks to de-
termine the fulfilment or otherwise of the requirements that
improve the quality of working conditions for recyclers
involved in formalisation approaches. Two indicators are
indirect and are based on preventive management measures
(a policy regarding occupational health and safety, and
training programmes about occupational health). The other
indicators are directly related to current aspects of appropri-
ate physical working conditions. For example, the presence
of basic medical equipment in the working place which
facilitates an adequately rapid response to work accidents
as learned in the training programmes.
Concerning psychological working conditions, several
studies assert that waste picking is related to low job satis-
faction and further negative psychological impacts on infor-
mal recyclers because of the lack of employment security,
lower social status, dangerous work places and working
conditions, irregular hours and isolation, etc. (Scheinberg
et al. 2006; Medina 2000; Cozzensa et al. 2006).
In order to measure the psychological working condi-
tions, Klang et al. (2003) researched this point using work-
ers at demolition waste recycling plants. The authors
evaluated the percentage of workers that would considering
remaining within the field and their willingness to continue
with further training related to their work. Jørgensen et al.
(2008) report the frequent use of psychological working
conditions evaluations in terms of job satisfaction.
The primary goal of formalisation approaches is the
improvement of working conditions. Stress and psycholog-
ically negative situations at work should be eliminated
through formalisation. The organisation of recyclers and
stimulation of their participation as formal stakeholders,
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2013) 18:1106–1115
etc. strengthens their rights and social status. In this paper,
the methodology proposed for the evaluation of work satis-
faction is the willingness to receive job training and to
continue working in the field. It is intended to measure the
satisfaction level of the formalised recyclers only in relation
to their recycling activities. Happiness or satisfaction in
other areas of their lives is not evaluated.
For the assessment of the impact category socio-economic
repercussions and the corresponding impact subcategory edu-
cation, three indicators are proposed. As previously described
various studies have reported child exploitation in waste pick-
ing activities in low-income countries (International Labour
2004; Medina 2000; Scheinberg et al. 2006; Wilson et al.
2006). Children work at dumps, on streets and also at home
helping the parents to with the daily income. This makes it
difficult to convince their parents to let the children go to
school. Formalisation approaches strive to promote the pres-
ence of children of recyclers in schools. The purpose of the
indicators proposed is to measure the performance of formal-
isation approaches in relation to school absence and the edu-
cational standard of children of recyclers which should be at
the national average school level according to age group.
A further objective of formalisation approaches is to
promote adult educational programmes for recyclers in or-
der to support their self-development and social status.
Informal recyclers often have a poor education and they
do not have the chance to complete it (Wilson et al. 2006;
Medina 2000). Several cities like Joao Pessoa in Brazil
(Pimentel and Countinho 2005) have implemented educa-
tional programmes as a part of a formalisation process
(Scheinberg et al. 2006). The proposed methodology tries
to determine whether this aspect in the evaluation of formal-
isation approaches has been fulfilled or not.
5.2 Social life cycle inventory
UNEP (2009) mentions as data collection methods both
desktop research and local data collection through inter-
views with stakeholders involved into the system. In order
to obtain balance, a comparison of the information given by
the stakeholders is preferred. Jørgensen et al. (2008) support
using local data and recommend that the data collection
must be related to this local level and to the stakeholders
within the evaluated system.
For recycling systems based on formalisation approaches,
the major stakeholders involved in the implementation and
operation of the formalisation will be interviewed (e.g. mu-
nicipalities, recyclers, NGOs, etc.). As previously mentioned,
there are other stakeholders within a recycling system (e.g.
citizens, recycling companies, etc.). Since the data needed for
the assessment are related to specific aspects about the imple-
mentation and functioning of the formalisation, the stakehold-
ers to be interviewed are those who are directly involved in it.
1113
A checklist of 56 closed and open-ended questions has been
developed in order to collect the relevant information for the
social assessment. They aim to obtain precise and logical
answers in order to make a score assignation 1 or 0 (compli-
ance or non-compliance of social criteria) possible. The same
check list will be applied to all stakeholders with the exception
of the subcategory psychological working conditions. In this
case, the interviews will only be carried out with the formalised
recyclers and workers at the recycling plant.
5.3 Life cycle impact assessment
5.3.1 Characterisation
Currently there is no international consensus on a character-
isation method for social impacts. UNEP (2009) asserts that
a scoring system can also be used in order to evaluate and
interpret the social data. Dreyer et al. (2010) developed a
methodology oriented towards a preventive approach that
assesses social management measures and uses an elaborat-
ed scoring system. Spillemaeckers et al. (2001) developed a
characterisation approach based on semi-quantitative indi-
cators and the application of the scores 1 and 0 representing
fulfilment or non-fulfilment of the social criteria (interna-
tional or local social conventions). The average of the scores
for each impact subcategory can subsequently be calculated.
This approach concentrates on the assessment of human
rights and working conditions and does not consider the
social context of the company.
The characterisation procedure for this methodology pro-
poses the application of a score system for each indicator
and assigns the values 1 and 0, respectively, for the fulfil-
ment or non-fulfilment of the social compliance criteria. The
answers given by each stakeholder interviewed regarding
fulfilment will be transformed into these values. Because
several stakeholders will be interviewed, the average score
for each indicator can be calculated.
Pn
i¼0 Si
n
5.3.2 Equation calculation of average score
Si=Score for indicator i given by the stakeholder i
n=number of stakeholders interviewed
The result for each of the 26 indicators will be an average
decimal score between 0 and 1. The average score calculat-
ed for each indicator represents the proportion of stakehold-
ers affirming fulfilment of the social criterion. To interpret
these average decimal scores, the following fulfilment cri-
terion is applied: an average score of less than 0.5 denotes
that the criterion for the positive evaluation of the indicator
was not fulfilled and the score is rounded down to 0. In the
1114
case that the average score reaches 0.5 or higher, the crite-
rion for the positive evaluation of the indicator is fulfilled.
The average score is then rounded up to 1. The reason for
this interpretation is that at least 50 % of the interviewees
(score 0.5) have to report the fulfilment of the social
criterion.
Regarding the indicators for the impact subcategory psy-
chological working condition, the only stakeholders to be
interviewed are the recyclers. Score assignation and fulfilment
criteria have been defined differently for the indicators of both
impact subcategories. A scale of 1 (very bad), 2 (bad), 3
(medium), 4 (good) and 5 (very good) will be used by the
recyclers to signify degrees of satisfaction. In order to trans-
form the scores obtained to a similar scale to the one used by
the indicators in other subcategories (0 or 1), the values of 0,
0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1 for the scale 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 will be
assigned, respectively. When the average scores given by the
recyclers are calculated, a number higher than “medium” (0.5)
means the fulfilment of the social criterion for the indicator
and it receives the final score “1”. An average score lower or
equal than 0.5 means non-fulfilment of the social criterion and
the final score “0” is designated.
After obtaining the average scores of the 26 indicators,
the score for each subcategory will be calculated and inter-
preted as follows: when all indicators within a subcategory
obtain the score “1”, the subcategory obtains the overall
evaluation “1” meaning the fulfilment of all the social
criteria for the subcategory. In the case that one or more
indicators within a subcategory receive “0”, the subcategory
obtains the overall evaluation as “0” meaning the non-
fulfilment of the social criteria related to the subcategory.
Each indicator within a subcategory represents a basic social
aspect to be fulfilled in accordance with social regulations.
In order to achieve a positive result, all subcategory indica-
tors have to be evaluated with “1”. It is important to mention
that although this evaluation is based on scores, these results
are not relevant as numeric values. The aim is to show the
differences between the case studies in terms of their social
aspects. The results indicate which aspects of a formalisa-
tion strategy are favourable or not.
6 Conclusions
This methodology was proposed to identify and measure
social impacts caused by the implementation of formalisation
approaches in recycling systems in low-income countries.
Currently, different social impact assessment methodologies
analysing products and productions chains have been estab-
lish but no methodological approach exists for recycling sys-
tems. It can be concluded that impact categories related to the
main social problems of informal recyclers have been identi-
fied. More detailed issues are addressed by the impact
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2013) 18:1106–1115
subcategories and indicators as defined in this paper. By
defining the functional unit as “60 kg/inhabitant-year of col-
lected recyclable household waste”, it would be possible to
assess social impacts before and after the implementation of
formalisation approaches. This methodology focuses on the
social impacts on recyclers, who perform the same service but
under different conditions.
At the same time, this methodology measures social
impacts caused by recycling systems after their implemen-
tation. Its application for assessing future scenarios is con-
tentious. Several social factors such as regulations,
tendencies, perceptions of satisfaction, quality of life, etc.
can change and cannot be precisely predicted. The applica-
bility of this methodology and its validation will be tested
through further research in three Peruvian cities with differ-
ent recycling systems.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Dr. Ines Omann
for her support and recommendations for this paper and the OEAD–
Austrian Agency for Cooperation in Education and Research for the
financial support of this study.
References
Brouwer R, Van Ek R (2004) Integrated ecological, economic and
social impact assessment of alternative flood control policies in
the Netherlands. Ecol Econ 50:1–21
Countreau S (2006) Occupational and environmental health issues of
solid waste management. Special emphasis on middle- and lower-
income countries. Urban papers. Urban sector board. The World
Bank Group. Washington D.C. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/
INTUSWM/Resources/up-2.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2012
Cozzensa M, Gastal A, Kriebel D (2006) Minor psychiatric disorders
among Brazilian rag pickers: a cross-sectional study. Environ
Health 5(17):1–10
Dreyer C, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social
life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97
Dreyer C, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2010) Characterisation of social
impacts in LCA. Part 1: development of indicators for labour
rights. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:247–259
Gamarra P, Salhofer S (2007) A comparison of waste management in
Peru and some Latin-American countries: an overview of major
problems, characteristics and needs in the Region. In: Diaz L, Eggert
L, Savage G (eds) Management of solid wastes in developing
countries. CISA Publisher, Cagliari. ISBN 978 88 6265 000 7
Gutberlet J (2011) Waste to energy, wasting resources and livelihoods. In:
Integrated waste management, Volume I. Chapter 12. InTech, pp
219 – 236. ISBN: 978-953-307-469-6. http://www.intechopen.com/
books/integrated-waste-management-volume-i/waste-to-energy-
wasting-resources-and-livelihoods. Accessed 10 Jan 2012
International Labour Organisation (2004) Addressing the exploitation
of children in scavenging (waste picking): a thematic evaluation
on action on child labour. ISBN PDF: 92-2-116662-7. http://
www.ilo.org/ipecinfo/product/viewProduct.do?productId=459.
Accessed 13 June 2012
Jørgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild M (2008) Method-
ologies for social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13
(2):96–113
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2013) 18:1106–1115
Kijak R, Moy D (2004) A decision support framework for sustainable
waste management. J Ind Ecol 8(3):33–50
Klöpffer W, Ciroth A (2011) Is LCC relevant in a sustainability
assessment? Answer to a letter to the editor. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 16:99–101
Klang K, Vikman P, Brattebø H (2003) Sustainable management of
demolition waste—an integrated model for the evaluation of
environmental, economic and social aspects. Resour Conserv
Recy 38:317–334
Mahadevia D, Pharate B, Mistry A (2005) New practices of waste
management—case of Mumbai, working paper N° 35. School of
Planning, Center for Environmental Planning and Technology
CEPT University Kasturbhai Lalbhai, India.http://spcept.ac.in/
pdf/New%20Practices%20of%20Waste%20Management%20-
%20Case%20of%20Mumbai.pdf. Accessed 27 June 2012
Manhart A, Grießhammer R (2006) Social impacts of the production of
notebooks. Contribution to the development of a Product Sustain-
ability Assessment (PROSA). Beitrag Öko–Institut e.V. Freiburg.
Germany. http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/291/2006-010-de.pdf.
Accessed 19 July 2012
Medina M (2000) Scavenger cooperatives in Asia and Latin America.
Resour Conserv Recy 31:51–89
MINAM. Ministry of Environment (2011) National Environmental
Information System. http://sinia.minam.gob.pe/index.php?
accion=verElemento&idElementoInformacion=1191&idformula.
Accessed 10 Nov 2012
Ness B, Urbel-Piirsalu E, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2007) Categorising
tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 60:498–508
Pimentel H, Countinho C (2005) Economic viability study of a sepa-
rate household waste collection in a developing country. J Mater
Cycles Waste 7:116–123
Rathi S (2006) Alternative approaches for better municipal solid waste
management in Mumbai, India. Waste Manag 26:1192–1200
Scheinberg A, Anschütz J, Van de Klundert A (2006) Waste pickers: poor
victims or waste management professionals? Paper No. 56 Workshop
of collaborative working group on solid waste management in low-
and middle income countries (CWG). Kolkata, India. http://
www.cwgnet.net/prarticle.2006-01-27.9445210332/prarticle.2006-
01-27.0949657238/prarticleblocklist.2006-01-27.1370579427/skat
documentation.2006-01-27.2759111709/file. Accessed 21 June 2012
View publication stats
1115
Scheinberg A, Simpson M, Gupt Y (2010) Economic aspects of the
informal sector in solid waste, GTZ, Eschborn, Germany. http://
www2.gtz.de/dokumente/bib-2011/giz2011-0116en-informal-sector-
solid-waste-management.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2012.
Spillemaeckers S, Mazijn B, Borgo E (2001) An integrated approach to
chain analysis for the purpose of chain management by compa-
nies. Study executed by the Centre for Sustainable Development.
Gent. Belgium. http://www.belspo.be/belspo/organisation/publ/
pub_ostc/HL/rHL13s_en.pdf . Accessed 27 June 2012
Terraza H and Sturzenegger G (2010) Organization dynamics of infor-
mal recyclers. Three case studies from Latin America. Infrastruc-
ture and environment sector. Technical note no. 117. Inter-
American Development Bank (IADB). http://idbdocs.iadb.org/
wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=35325785. Accessed 27 June
2012
UN–HABITAT (2010) Solid waste management in the world’s cities.
Water and sanitation in the world’s cities. United Nation Human
Settlements Program, London. ISBN: 9781849711708. http://
www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=
2918. Accessed 16 November 2011
UNEP–SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (2009) Guidelines for social
life cycle assessment of products. United Nations Environ-
ment Programme. Life Cycle Initiative. http://www.unep.fr/
shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1164×PA-guidelines_sLCA.pdf.
Accessed 22 April 2010
Wilson D, Velis C, Cheeseman C (2006) Role of informal sector
recycling in waste management in developing countries. Habitat
Int 30:797–808
Wilson D, Araba A, Chinwah K, Cheeseman C (2009) Building
recycling rates through the informal sector. Waste Manag
29:629–635
Zurbrügg C, Schertenleib R (1998) Main problems and issues of
municipal solid waste management in developing countries with
emphasis on problems related to disposal by landfill. Third Swed-
ish landfill research symposia. October 1998. Lulea. Sweden.
Department of Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries
(SANDEC) and Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Sci-
ence & Technology (EAWAG). http://www.eawag.ch/forschung/
sandec/publikationen/swm/dl/swm-problems-disposal.pdf.
Accessed 21 June 2012